{"id":231723,"date":"2025-10-17T14:48:11","date_gmt":"2025-10-17T14:48:11","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/us\/231723\/"},"modified":"2025-10-17T14:48:11","modified_gmt":"2025-10-17T14:48:11","slug":"quebecs-proposed-constitution-may-be-ludicrous-but-it-might-still-pose-a-real-threat","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/us\/231723\/","title":{"rendered":"Quebec\u2019s proposed constitution may be ludicrous \u2013 but it might still pose a real threat"},"content":{"rendered":"

Open this photo in gallery:<\/a><\/p>\n

Quebec Premier Fran\u00e7ois Legault at the legislature in Quebec City on Oct. 1. The provincial government’s Bill 1 proposes amendments to the 1867 Constitution Act and Charter of human rights and freedoms, among other legislation.Jacques Boissinot\/The Canadian Press<\/p>\n

The initial reaction to Bill 1, the CAQ government\u2019s proposed new constitution for Quebec<\/a>, was derision, mixed with bewilderment, mixed with hostility. A constitution, supposedly reflecting a society\u2019s highest aspirations and most profound beliefs about how it should be governed, that was wholly the creation of the governing party, drafted in secret and sprung upon the public without consultation? Perhaps the CAQ can use its majority (representing 41 per cent of the popular vote) to muscle it through over the opposition\u2019s objections, but Quebeckers are said not to take kindly to having constitutions imposed on them. <\/p>\n

Others have pointed out that much of the proposed constitution was, well, unconstitutional. Indeed the proposed \u201claw of laws\u201d appears to have been scribbled down with a good deal more haste than forethought, lacking even a means of amending itself<\/a>. It seems equally unclear on the question of how it would be enforced, or whether it would in fact take \u201cprecedence over any inconsistent rule of law\u201d (Article 2), given that it also declares (Article 35) that the National Assembly \u201cis sovereign in the areas under its legislative jurisdiction.\u201d<\/p>\n

And yes, in a number of places, Bill 1 \u2013 an omnibus bill containing not only the proposed new Quebec Constitution Act, but several other new laws and amendments to existing laws \u2013 takes flagrant liberties with the Constitution of Canada. <\/p>\n

\u201cThe only official language of Qu\u00e9bec is French.\u201d We\u2019ve been here before, of course: that is also the declaration in Bill 96, passed by the same government, as it was in Bill 101. That doesn\u2019t make it so.<\/p>\n

Start with articles 13, 14 and 15, asserting that \u201cthe Qu\u00e9bec people has, in fact and in law, the right to self-determination,\u201d that it \u201chas the inalienable right to freely decide the political system and legal status of Qu\u00e9bec,\u201d and that in any referendum of the Quebec people, \u201c50 per cent of the valid votes cast plus one\u201d is enough to declare a winner. The combined effect, if it does not go so far as to state explicitly that Quebec has a unilateral right to secede, and on a vote of a bare majority \u2013 in both cases contrary to the Supreme Court of Canada\u2019s ruling in the Secession Reference \u2013 certainly leaves that impression. <\/p>\n

Then there\u2019s article 21: \u201cThe only official language of Qu\u00e9bec is French.\u201d We\u2019ve been here before, of course: that is also the declaration in Bill 96, passed by the same government, as it was in Bill 101. That doesn\u2019t make it so. The Constitution Act, 1867, is quite clear on this point: section 133 provides for the use of English and French in the debates, journals and acts of both the Parliament of Canada and the legislature of Quebec, as well as in the courts of each jurisdiction. Indeed, I do not have to rely on a translation of article 21: Bill 1 is itself printed in both languages, as the Supreme Court ordered Quebec to do in 1979 (in Attorney-General of Quebec v Blaikie)<\/a> and as it has done ever since.<\/p>\n

There\u2019s more. There\u2019s text to a proposed oath for members of the National Assembly that excludes the sovereign, contrary to Section 128 of the 1867 Constitution. But then, another section of the bill purports to amend the 1867 Constitution, in this as in a number of other respects. But that, too, is contrary to the Constitution: even amendments that apply only to one province require the approval of both the legislature of that province and the Parliament of Canada. <\/p>\n

Alberta and Quebec find common ground in opposing Ottawa<\/a><\/p>\n

In the same way, the bill unilaterally changes the title of the Lieutenant-Governor of Quebec (to \u201cthe Officer\u201d), and asserts that the premier of Quebec will \u201cdesignate\u201d whom he \u201cwishes to see\u201d appointed. Similarly murky provisions empower the premier to \u201cpropose\u201d appointments to the Senate and the Supreme Court, with a requirement to inform the National Assembly if his proposal is not accepted. <\/p>\n

There\u2019s much else that is simply ahistorical, or unsupported assertions, or both. The current territory of Quebec, for example, is described as \u201cthe historical homeland\u201d of Quebeckers, and as such \u201cindivisible.\u201d The province\u2019s \u201cpolitical and institutional existence,\u201d it is claimed, \u201csignificantly predates that of the Canadian federal union,\u201d in whose founding, it is asserted, \u201cQuebec participated.\u201d <\/p>\n

Well, no. Quebec did not exist as a political and institutional entity at the time of Confederation: the former Lower and Upper Canada had been fused since 1841 into a unitary Province of Canada. No participant in the founding conferences attended as part of an official Quebec delegation, nor did they sit as a Quebec caucus. Quebec, in its current form, was a creation of that process, as was present-day Ontario. <\/p>\n

2024: Legault says he\u2019s \u2018open\u2019 to possibility of a Quebec constitution by 2026<\/a><\/p>\n

Even acknowledging that there existed a territory prior to the Act of Union that was known as Quebec, it did not occupy anything like its current territory. The vast majority of its current territory was added after Confederation: by acts of the Parliament of Canada in 1898 and 1912, and by a decision of the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council in 1927. <\/p>\n

It is debatable whether a province may leave the federation even with the territory it brought into it. Certainly it cannot do so unilaterally: sovereignty, once pooled in a federation, cannot simply be unpooled by fiat. But the notion that you could depart with vast swaths of territory that were never your \u201chistorical homeland\u201d \u2013 that you could insist, with a straight face, that Canada is divisible but Quebec is not \u2013 only illustrates that \u201csovereignty is what you can get away with.\u201d<\/p>\n

There\u2019s more in that vein. (Example: Quebec \u201chas always refused to adhere\u201d to the 1982 Constitution. Verifiably false: what do you think it is doing every time it invokes the notwithstanding clause?) The whole, moreover, is written in that iridescent shade of purple prose aptly referred to as \u201cnationalist baroque,\u201d a sort of pseudo-Jacobin vernacular in which \u201cthe nation\u201d is forever marching serenely toward its destiny, guarded at every turn by the state, vigilant against any attempt to assert individual or minority rights against the \u201ccollective rights\u201d of la nation. <\/p>\n

But the notion that you could depart with vast swaths of territory that were never your \u201chistorical homeland\u201d \u2013 that you could insist, with a straight face, that Canada is divisible but Quebec is not \u2013 only illustrates that \u201csovereignty is what you can get away with.\u201d<\/p>\n

And who is that nation? The Parliament of Canada passed a resolution in 2006 recognizing that the province\u2019s French-speaking majority \u2013 \u201cthe Qu\u00e9b\u00e9cois\u201d was the term used in the English version \u2013 formed a nation \u201cwithin a united Canada.\u201d That is uncontroversial in a sociological sense, but that sense has long since been replaced, in the lexicon of the province\u2019s political class, by the idea that Quebec is a nation, and not only a nation but a nation-state. That\u2019s nice, from the standpoint of inclusiveness \u2013 \u201cthe Quebec people,\u201d Bill 1 declares, \u201cis composed of all Quebeckers\u201d \u2013 but it rather turns in on itself. If the \u201cnation\u201d is not defined by the province\u2019s linguistic and cultural majority, but rather is a pluralistic hodge-podge like the rest of Canada, then what is its claim to specific recognition?<\/p>\n

So okay, the bill is a bit of a mess. And it has been repudiated, for now, by all of the province\u2019s other opposition parties. But let us not imagine it has been repudiated for any of the reasons explained above: rather, it was on procedural and political grounds. Not only had the government not consulted them, but it plainly hoped to use the bill to revive its flagging political fortunes in time for next year\u2019s election. The other parties were not about to help it in that regard.<\/p>\n

But on the merits? As ahistorical as it is, as unconstitutional as it is, as flat-out crazy as it is in parts, the plain fact is that most of the Quebec political class agrees with most of it. Even the nominally federalist Liberals have never explicitly disavowed the idea of unilateral secession, even if they have resisted enshrining such a claim in legislation. But 50 per cent plus one? Quebec is a nation? The only official language is French? Quebec never accepted the 1982 Constitution? Canada is divisible but Quebec is not? All are more or less universal dogma. What begins on the outer fringes of secessionist fantasy sooner or later migrates into the mainstream.<\/p>\n

As ahistorical as it is, as unconstitutional as it is, as flat-out crazy as it is in parts, the plain fact is that most of the Quebec political class agrees with most of it.<\/p>\n

And not only within the province. More striking has been the nationalists\u2019 success at colonizing opinion in the rest of Canada, not least among the federal political parties. Bill 96, for example, not only asserted the power to unilaterally amend the Constitution of Canada with regard to language, but also to apply provincial language legislation to federally regulated corporations. <\/p>\n

Yet far from opposing these extra-constitutional measures, the Justin Trudeau (!) government actively colluded in them. Federal language legislation was amended to make it broadly in line with Quebec\u2019s. The text of the Constitution<\/a> maintained on the federal Justice Department\u2019s website now incorporates Section \u201c90Q.1\u201d (\u201cQuebeckers form a nation\u201d) and \u201c90Q.2\u201d (\u201cFrench shall be the only official language of Quebec\u201d); a footnote<\/a> explains that \u201cthese provisions aim to amend the constitution of the province.\u201d But they don\u2019t just \u201caim\u201d to amend that: they also \u201caim\u201d to amend Section 133, which is very much part of the Constitution of Canada, as virtually all legal scholars agree.<\/p>\n

We should be concerned by Bill 1, therefore, not in spite of its ludicrous overreach, but because of it. This country\u2019s political class simply lacks the will to defend its legitimate prerogatives in the face of determined provincial efforts \u2013 not only in Quebec, but now elsewhere \u2013 to undermine them. (Try to imagine a resolution of the House of Commons declaring that \u201cCanada is a nation.\u201d Go ahead and try.) <\/p>\n

Even the courts tend to split the difference. Rather than assert what was spectacularly evident in the Secession Reference, for example \u2013 that there is no legal right to unilateral secession \u2013 the Supreme Court invented a \u201cconstitutional duty to negotiate\u201d on the part of the rest of Canada in response to a clear referendum result, though it left unstated precisely what it was obliged to negotiate.<\/p>\n

What begins on the outer fringes of secessionist fantasy sooner or later migrates into the mainstream.<\/p>\n

I understand the fear. You\u2019re seeing some of that now with regard to a couple of milquetoast federal recommendations to the Supreme Court in the matter of the notwithstanding clause: constitutional crisis, separation inevitable, etc. Who wants to be responsible for that? Yet I well remember similar dire predictions in advance of the Secession Reference, and again when the Clarity Act was unveiled. Quebec will go up in flames! You\u2019ve just handed the separatists \u201cwinning conditions!\u201d etc. etc.<\/p>\n

It never happened. Quebeckers had a look at both, shrugged, and went about their business \u2013 to the dismay of the secessionist government at the time. (Lucien Bouchard was so upset by their failure to be upset he resigned as premier.) That\u2019s actually been something of a pattern. On those rare, rare occasions when the federal government shows some backbone in the face of nationalist threats \u2013 patriation, the Clarity Act, maybe one or two other examples \u2013 support for secession declines. When it attempts, fruitlessly, to appease them, it rises.<\/p>\n

I suggest this is not accidental. When the feds fail to assert themselves \u2013 when the nationalists make extravagant demands for more powers or money or better yet both, and the only response from Ottawa is an echo \u2013 then the federal government becomes more or less invisible to them, and with it the country itself. The boundaries of their identity accordingly get drawn in line with the province\u2019s. <\/p>\n

But when the government of Canada behaves as if it believes it has a right to exist \u2013 as if Canada had a right to exist \u2013 then the boundaries of identity get redrawn. Quebeckers are reminded that they are a part of a federation, one to which they have contributed mightily and from which they have benefited greatly. <\/p>\n

At any rate, I suspect we may have the opportunity to test this thesis before long.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"Open this photo in gallery: Quebec Premier Fran\u00e7ois Legault at the legislature in Quebec City on Oct. 1.…\n","protected":false},"author":2,"featured_media":231724,"comment_status":"","ping_status":"","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[47],"tags":[129136,38965,129137,192,1767,79],"class_list":{"0":"post-231723","1":"post","2":"type-post","3":"status-publish","4":"format-standard","5":"has-post-thumbnail","7":"category-environment","8":"tag-andrew-coyne","9":"tag-column","10":"tag-coyne","11":"tag-environment","12":"tag-opinion","13":"tag-science"},"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/us\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/231723","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/us\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/us\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/us\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/2"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/us\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=231723"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/us\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/231723\/revisions"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/us\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/231724"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/us\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=231723"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/us\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=231723"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/us\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=231723"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}